ILNews

Parents, child service provider group sue DCS over subsidies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


In a one-two punch, a pair of lawsuits filed a week apart in December hit the Indiana Department of Child Services square in the gut over how the agency planned to reduce payment rates for foster and adoptive parents and juvenile service providers.

The suits have been combined in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana into a single piece of litigation that raises questions about how these per diem subsidy changes are calculated and what impact they could have on the overall child welfare and juvenile justice system.

Led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies (IARCCA), the cases both named as defendants the DCS and Director James Payne, a former juvenile judge in Marion County. The suits represent more than 100 agencies statewide and could potentially impact a class of foster and adoptive parents throughout Indiana.

But the case ties in with a broader picture that goes beyond the per diem payment rate changes that were set to go into effect in 2010 and those within Indiana's juvenile justice system say the DCS decisions could potentially have a detrimental effect on both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. They claim the policies and decisions being made are jeopardizing effective treatment services and consequently tying judges' hands by reducing their options in doing what's best for children and families.

"This is very concerning because we must provide enough services so that we can, as judges, make reasonable efforts to reunite families and provide the services to children who need it," said Marion Superior Juvenile Judge Marilyn Moores, who pointed out she wasn't familiar with the two cases but has concerns after hearing about the issues. "Any disruption in the provider community is very concerning to judges because our concern is if there will be reasonable services available. If there's not, that jeopardizes what we do."

At issue in the now-combined lawsuits are DCS funds received and allocated under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which says the state must make foster care maintenance payments for qualified children to cover food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision, personal incidentals, liability insurance, and reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation. Federal law requires that the rates be sufficient to cover those costs, and in exchange for that payment the state DCS receives federal matching funds to cover part of the costs for those services to children.

In setting rates during the past two years, the DCS has scaled down any increases and frozen the rates paid to service providers as budget woes worsened for Indiana. By October, the expected cut for service providers was at 10 percent but it changed by Nov. 30 to between 14 and 20 per- cent with a stern warning from DCS that any provider that didn't agree to the rates within two weeks would have children in their care transferred to other providers.

For foster and adoptive parents, DCS sent a letter in early December notifying them that their monthly payments would be reduced by 10 percent starting Jan. 1, no matter when the placement or adoption took place.

That set the stage for the litigation, and when that DCS-imposed deadline for rate agreements came, the lawsuits began.

Service providers sue


IARCCA, an association of about 110 child welfare agencies providing services to about 4,600 children statewide, filed the first suit in Marion Superior Court Dec. 14. The focus is on the rate cuts announced earlier that month by DCS for agencies providing foster care placements and intensive residential treatment for abused and neglected children. Within two weeks it was removed to federal court, and IARCCA continued its efforts to stop DCS from implementing payment cuts it describes as arbitrary and based solely on budget concerns.

Specifically, the suit cites examples of those cuts, including: Indiana Developmental Training Center in Lafayette and Indianapolis, which services up to 64 and 96 kids respectively and would have to cut even more than the 29 positions already eliminated in both locations; and the Christian Haven residential provider in Jasper County, which expects to eliminate 40 positions including therapists and employees who provide direct care to children.

The suit makes three claims against DCS: It violated Indiana Code 4-22 by not setting reimbursement rates according to promulgated rules; it violated Title IV-E by not offering any written criteria or methods about rate changes and adequacy of what's proposed; and the agency violated the Section 1983 provision of the U.S. Constitution by acting under color of state law in setting arbitrary rates and violating the federal rights of IARCCA and its member agencies.

DCS declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation, though spokeswoman Ann Houseworth said the agency hopes for a quick resolution and looks forward to continued partnerships with all those committed to the welfare of Indiana's children. After the cuts were announced in early December, DCS Director Payne issued a news release.

"These are incredibly difficult deliberations and everyone involved recognizes the magnitude of the decisions made," he said. "Like other state agencies and business entities, we have spent countless hours trying to find ways to reduce expenses and be good stewards of tax dollars while providing safe, quality care for children... The rate reduction, while unfortunate, still keeps Indiana foster care rates higher than most states."

IARCCA hit the DCS with its first blow within two weeks of the announcement. A second blow came a week later.

Parents follow suit


On Dec. 22, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit on behalf of two adoptive and foster families, with a combined total of nine children who are at the heart of the case. A motion for class certification has been filed, seeking to expand the case for any foster parents who are or will receive foster care maintenance from the DCS, and any current or future foster children for whom any payments are to be made through the DCS.

The lawsuit claims Payne and DCS failed to conduct individual assessments of families and the cost of providing for foster and adoptive children before deciding on the cuts, which will reduce adoption and foster care subsidies so much that parents won't be able to provide for the children's needs.

Both DCS cases have been consolidated, as they deal with similar issues and the same agency decision. A preliminary injunction motion filed Dec. 29 asks the court to stop the state from being able to initiate the reductions while the litigation is ongoing, and a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 20. A class certification request is also pending before the court.

Impact


While DCS litigation plays out in court, those in the juvenile justice and child welfare system are concerned the payment changes for foster and adoptive parents will cause more to turn away from these necessary roles, giving the courts and child welfare workers even fewer options for protecting children. Others see this as another piece in a larger puzzle of problems in the DCS in recent years as the DCS has gained more control of the juvenile justice system.

Judge Moores said she fully understands the financial pressures the state and DCS are under but that those monetary concerns can't be the underlying basis for these decisions.

"That was always the fear skeptics had about the DCS making the calls," she said, referring to controversy about the DCS having final say on out-of-state placements. "I fully understand the financial pressure the state is under, but if lower reimbursement rates drive providers out of business, there's a concern that there won't be appropriate services for families and kids.

"I don't know what the answer is," Judge Moores said, "but I certainly hope the best interests of children will remain the primary guiding force."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT